overbalanced chain drive

[helicalred]

@ATT,
Your Sprocketless Avalanche Drive is an elegant simplification that should make analysis somewhat easier. If friction were neglected, and all the weights considered massless except for one, then someone with far more expertise in physics and maths than me should be able to develop a formula that expresses the energy that weight acquires on the 'force' side versus the energy required to return it to its original postion up the 'load' side. The difference would be the theoretical energy gifted (to use Murilo's term) to the system by that weight alone.

Maybe an inner weight and an outer weight should be considered simultaneously as they follow slightly different paths.

@Murilo
I do admire your drawings - they really help maintain a coherent discussion. Good luck with your build.

Regards, Bill

[murilo]

Wow...
Thanks for your words, guys.
I`ll pretend that Fletcher is not been sarcastic, since for years he was a hard opposition to avalanchedrive.
Actually, a computer full simulation for the shape in ``U`` would be enough to a good conclusion.
See you!
Murilo  SP june/10th

[maxpesh]

Go ahead and build it, it will definitely work. More detailed plans are available in the practical guide to free energy pdf manual from Patrick J Kelly and he even improves on the device by a good amount. Can't wait to see one in action. Good luck :-)

[murilo]

Go ahead and build it, it will definitely work. More detailed plans are available in the practical guide to free energy pdf manual from Patrick J Kelly and he even improves on the device by a good amount. Can't wait to see one in action. Good luck :-)

Max, thanx for your words!
I keep working, alone, on this and I'm glad that Patrick sent it in his manual.
Time will come when a good computer simulation will come!
Take a look at the condensed pile in my model.
Best regards!
Murilo

[murilo]

This device will not work. Like any 'overbalanced' device it shares the characteristic that there is no net energy production per revolution. Any energy gained during the descent of the heavy side is exactly equal or less than the amount of energy required to raise this mass back to the starting position.

In a frictionless world this device would continue to rotate, as no energy would be lost per revolution, and it would be perpetual motion. However, so would a perfectly balanced wheel and that would be much simpler to build.

In the real world friction would stop the device quickly.

Gianna, thanx for your appreciation, which I don't agree.
Relatively to all mass of the set, the ACTIVE friction is very small, with opening and shutting angles on small axles of chain.
This means that the vertical mechanic contact is beneficial, since a provisional assembling is part of the 'trick'.
We have a grounded axle that deal to both sides with different potentials...
Well, when starting ANY moving the gravity acceleration rules will play, with a quadratic application on results - non linear.
This is very easy to see: the heavier side will go down just like heavier side of a seesaw.
Best!
Murilo